alpbacher architekturgespräche 2003 - ATP

Approaches that envisage alternative forms of behaviour, while accepting existing settlement forms,
have little place in current expert thinking.Transport professionals and decision makers are much
more likely to speak of the unavoidable pressure to improve the situation for the car driver.
Approaches on the other hand that seek to reduce reliance on the car by broadening the transport
options open to the public are generally very sceptically viewed by the experts. However, by looking
at examples of projects from a broad range of countries we can see where “soft” policies have
reduced the proportion of car use. Indeed, it was exactly in a conurbation seemingly designed to
maximise car use - Perth in Western Australia – that this approach was for the first time truly successful.
Further examples show however that such success is not peculiarly Australian and that the key
is treating the citizen as a partner, appealing to his sense of responsibility and motivating him to make
his contribution. Many small changes of behaviour can, taken together, have a very large-scale effect.
It is however also clear that traffic is a result of the specific needs of individuals, and it is not automatic
that a car is required every time. By transmitting this message, one can also promote settlement
and land use patterns which do not depend solely on the car.
Key Mobility Statistics in Central and Peripheral Areas
Socialdata carried out transport research in a series of German regions, producing mobility statistics for
residents of both central and peripheral areas. Individual areas were grouped in the categories “region”
or “centre”, allowing totals to be calculated and compared.This research outlined everyday mobility in
these areas and highlighted the role of the car, allowing the question to be asked of whether this private
car use was really vital and, therefore, what possibilities existed for reducing reliance on the car (fig. 1).
Everyday mobility was next examined in terms of a broad range of mobility statistics.The population’s
choice of method of transport is a key factor in the study of transport behaviour and is the first thing
which we look at here in detail. In total, in regions, people made almost a quarter (23%) of all journeys
by foot, an eighth (13%) by bicycle and over half (56%) by car – whether as driver (43%) or passenger
(13%). Public transport was used in 7% of cases. In centres, the proportion of non-motorised
journeys is virtually the same, although more journeys are made by foot as in regions. However, the
share of public transport (17%) is considerably higher. Consequently – the use of private motorised
transport (as driver or passenger of car or motorbike) is lower, with car use reaching 45% compared
with 56% in the region (fig. 2). The choice of transport in regions is marked by more reliance on
private cars and less on public transport.
Activities outside the home are the prime cause of mobility, establishing the daily routine and explaining
why people are underway.These activities come in five groups (Work, Education, Services, Leisure,
Other). Each fifth journey of the regional dweller has to do with work and every tenth with education.The
highest number of journeys relates to services (shopping and other service activities – post
office visits etc – 30%) and leisure (29%).
For the city dweller the statistics are more or less identical, with an equal distribution of journeys
amongst regular activities (work and education), services and leisure (fig. 3). Hence the activities causing
journeys are similarly distributed in centres and regions. Other key mobility statistics involve the
number of activities and journeys per person per day, journey times and travel distances. Here we
present the key values for private everyday mobility (ignoring commercial transport, holiday travel
and journeys over 100km) (fig. 4).
On an average day, the average citizen carries out 1.6 activities, requiring 2.8 journeys and a total
journey time of 56 minutes in which 22 kilometres are travelled.
In cities mobility is slightly increased (with longer travel times and more journeys), although the distance
travelled is less. A consideration of travel distances by car creates the following picture. Around 10%
of car journeys are no longer than a kilometre, around a quarter are between one and three kilometres.These
statistics are true both in centres and in regions. However, for journeys over three kilometres,
the figures for centres and regions vary. In regions, the proportion of journeys between three
and five kilometres is around 15% but in centres this is 20%, and for journeys between five and ten
kilometres the situation is similar, with this distance accounting for 20% of journeys in regions and 25%
in centres. For journeys of between 10 and 50 kilometres, however, the picture is reversed, with the
30% of such journeys in regions being significantly higher than the 20% in centres.The proportion of
journeys over 50 kilometres in both areas is very low (fig. 5). Most of the research carried out so far
has shown that the majority of car journeys are of less than five kilometres. In both areas 50% of
journeys have been completed within five kilometres. In regions the proportion of longer car journeys
is higher however, principally due to the less dense settlement structure.
In looking at transport use in both regions and centres it is instructive to examine both the types of
journeys, and the choices of method used to make those journeys. In doing so, it is possible to distinguish
between three key types of journeys:“Internal Journeys”, which are carried out entirely within
the traveller’s city or settlement; journeys between centres and regions or vice versa and “external
journeys” - the journeys of the city dweller exclusively in the region or of the region dweller exclusively
in the city (fig. 6). Around two thirds of internal journeys in the regions are made by foot (39%)
or bicycle (21%), with public transport playing an almost insignificant role (3%), whereas in the centres
it is very significant (18%). Here, the choice of foot or bicycle (30%, 12%) is lower. However, the car
is equally significant in both areas (regions – 36%, centres – 39%).
The choice of transport method between centres and regions and vice versa is very different. Here,
58% of journeys are made by car and 20% by public transport. Journeys by foot and bicycle are more
or less insignificant.“External Journeys” are also extensively made by car (74%, 75%) in both categories.This
analysis makes it clear that the choice of transport method is heavily influenced by the sort
of journey which is to be undertaken but that car use in centres and regions is fairly similar. In the past
decade, car ownership has steadily increased and the effect of this on mobility patterns can be seen
by comparing transport data for the period 1992-2002 (fig. 7).
The development of modal choice shows that in both centres and regions, motorised private transport
has increased between 1992 and 2002.This increase was mostly at the expense of journeys by
foot and bicycle and, in regions, at the expense of public transport. In centres however, public transport
has retained its importance. In 1992 journeys by foot already played a less significant role in cities
than in regions and in the years to 2002, this tendency increased in both areas as car use increased.
Mobility itself, however, has in both areas changed very little in this time. In both areas travel times
and distances increased as, very slightly, did the number of journeys.The number of activities only
increased very slightly in the regions (fig. 8).The causes of mobility remain therefore largely unchanged,
whereas travel time and distance have changed in a reflection of the changed modal split.
Mobility in Perth,Australia
Extensive transport research has also been carried out in Perth in Australia. As a result of generous
land availability and the resulting low density settlement pattern, Perth is a strongly car-oriented city.
This can be seen in the following table of mobility types in various parts of the city (fig. 9). In comparison
with Germany, far more journeys here are made by car.The percentage is around twice as high
< alpbacher architekturgespräche 2003: nachlese > 195